| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Senate rebukes Obama, rejects his 9/11 lawsuit veto |
| 2016-09-28 |
| h/t Instapundit The bipartisan vote came despite lobbying from Obama to uphold his veto. Obama said he objects to the bill because it could damage U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia and could undermine America's own sovereign immunity against lawsuits. The Senate voted 97-1 to override Obama's veto, and the only no vote was from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The legislation now heads to the House, where lawmakers are expected to vote as early as Wednesday afternoon. If the House follows, it would be the first time Congress has overridden one of his vetoes. ????????????? |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #18 Oh, Germany can have whatever oil is left, we will shortly need it no more. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2016-09-28 22:53 |
| #17 EC, I hear you, understand, and do not care. It is DUE. You make rational arguments though. Me, I am at the point of turning the entire region to over-lapping glassy circles. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2016-09-28 22:51 |
| #16 Groovy, even. And a 'sense of the public'. These rat bastards would never dare do this unless the alternative was unbearable. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2016-09-28 22:45 |
| #15 #12 - not enough hair on that ass... |
| Posted by: Raj 2016-09-28 20:35 |
| #14 The ICC may be located in The Hague, but it's not a European Court. It's a creation of the United Nation and only states which ratified membership have legal obligations towards the ICC. The United States has none. Individuals can only be prosecuted for crimes that are listed in the Statute: currently genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Saudi Arabia is a non-signatory state. If it were a signatory state victims of 9/11 could go to the ICC to have Saudi citizens responsible for 9/11 prosecuted (if Saudi Arabia fails to do so). The ICC can't prosecute states though, only individuals. This is one of the rare occasions Obama is right. It sets a precedent that may really hurt the U.S. in the future. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-09-28 19:58 |
| #13 |
| Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 2016-09-28 19:35 |
| #12 Grovy. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-28 18:49 |
| #11 Veto override - accomplished. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2016-09-28 18:48 |
| #10 Of course it does. Sovereign immunity doesn't apply to former heads of state (like Pinochet, Milosevic etc.) So claiming that official of other country is subject to your courts --- meaning your laws supercede theirs --- is not violation of that country sovereignty? Where did you EUropeans got this idea? Who the Hell told you you're morally superior to a dog? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-28 18:14 |
| #9 "That doesn't matter." Of course it does. Sovereign immunity doesn't apply to former heads of state (like Pinochet, Milosevic etc.) "What kind of a relationship is it if they can bomb us with impunity?" You are right but the response is not a civil lawsuit, but war. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-09-28 17:53 |
| #8 Or if Saddam's heirs sued Bush. And then there's Assad... Lawyer up, folks. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-09-28 17:53 |
| #7 It'd be really funny if Q'daffy's heirs sued Obama. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-09-28 17:51 |
| #6 And what about Slobodan Milosovic? And, as far as relations with the Soddies, What kind of a relationship is it if they can bomb us with impunity? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-09-28 17:45 |
| #5 Augusto Pinochet was no longer head of state when he was prosecuted. That doesn't matter. This was violation of Chilean sovereignty. Most EUropean countries have global "human rights" laws that allow them violate other countries sovereignty. I know that because, at one time or another, all of them threatened IDF personnel. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-28 16:59 |
| #4 Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. Augusto Pinochet was no longer head of state when he was prosecuted. With the ICC matters are a bit more complicated as the example of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir shows. http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/the-icc-bashir-and-the-immunity-of-heads-of-state/ |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-09-28 16:38 |
| #3 Tell it to ICC. Or to Augusto Pinochet. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-28 16:14 |
| #2 "and could undermine America's own sovereign immunity against lawsuits" Actually this is a real concern. Sovereign immunity, as odious as it may seem in this case, exists for a reason. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-09-28 16:07 |
| #1 It's an election year. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-09-28 15:40 |